Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
\
|
+ = COVERAGE for
COVERAGE
o
(3)
or
) 5000 (
5000
log * 07058 . 0 1
10
< |
.
|
\
|
+ = COVERAGE for
COVERAGE
o
(4)
Figure 5 presents a COMFAA screen with a design thickness result. COMFAA runs calculations
for rigid pavements in two different computational modes: ACN Computation Mode and
Pavement Design Mode. In the ACN Computation Mode, ACN calculations and slab thickness
calculations are based on the slab interior stress [a.]. In the Pavement Design Mode, slab
thickness calculations implement the FAA Westergaard edge stress as in the design charts in AC
150/5320-6D [b.].
To choose the computational mode, select the appropriate option button in the computational
mode frame, as shown in figure 5. When the option button labeled "ACN Computation" is
8
selected and the button labeled "ACN Rigid" is clicked on, PCC slab thicknesses and ACNs are
calculated for four pavement structures having subgrades with specified k values (552.6, 294.7,
147.4, and 73.7 lb/in
3
- 150.0, 80.0, 40.0, and 20 kg/cm
3
). These calculations are based on the
slab interior stress.
Figure 4. Algorithm for Calculating Slab Thickness
Determine interval in which the
solution exists (H1, H2=H1+DH)
DH = 0.5 * DH
H
Slab
= H1 + DH
DH = DH*0.5
75 . 0 * 3 . 1
) (
Rc
H
Slab
< o
H
Slab
= H
Slab
- DH H
Slab
= H
Slab
+ DH
DH < 0.01
Finish
True False
True False
9
Figure 5. COMFAA Graphic Interface with Design Thickness Result
10
If the option button labeled "Pavement Design" is selected and the button labeled "Rigid Design"
is clicked on, the program computes PCC slab thickness for the k value specified by the user.
(To specify the k value, click on the field labeled "k lb/in^3" and type the k value in a message
box.) These calculations are based on the slab edge stress.
For the case shown in figure 5, the design thickness of a slab is 17.90 inches (45.47 cm) on a
subgrade with a k value of 100 lb/in
3
(27.1 kg/cm
3
) and loaded with a 400,000-pound (181,437
kg) dual tandem gear aircraft at 10,000 coverages, in which the coverages can be obtained from
the total pass number divided by the pass/coverage ratio in AC 150/5320-6D [b.].
2.5 Reliability of COMFAA
The reliability of COMFAA was checked with respect to the calculation of ACNs, slab edge
stress, and slab thickness.
2.5.1 ACNs Calculated Using the COMFAA, ACNR, and ACNF Programs
Appendix C, table C-1, contains a comparison of the ACNs for rigid pavements calculated by
COMFAA to those obtained from the ICAO Design Manual [a.]. Appendix C, table C-2,
contains a comparison of ACNs for flexible pavements calculated by COMFAA to those
obtained from the ICAO Design Manual. From a review of tables C-1 and C-2, it can be
concluded that for 27 of the 30 added aircraft, the ACNs calculated using the COMFAA program
are similar to the ACNs obtained from the ICAO Design Manual. Significant differences in the
ACNs exist only for Canadair CL 44, DC-10-15, and IL76T aircraft. The ACNs for Canadair
CL 44 calculated by COMFAA are about 5 points higher than the ACNs obtained from the
ICAO Design Manual.
A significant difference of 5.7 points in the ACN number exists for DC-10-15 aircraft on rigid
pavements with a subgrade having k=20 MN/m
3
. Normally, the calculations of ACNs for rigid
pavements are done with the default rigid cutoff value of 3. With a rigid cutoff value of 1.23, the
ACN number for a rigid pavement with a k=20 MN/m
3
subgrade is 72, which is closer to the
ICAO Design Manual number of 74 for the DC-10-15.
There are significant differences between ACNs calculated by COMFAA and the ACNs obtained
from the ICAO Design Manual for the IL76T aircraft. Moreover, the ACNs for rigid pavements
are unreasonable, because the ACN number calculated by COMFAA for a rigid pavement with a
subgrade having k=20 MN/m
3
is lower than that with a subgrade having k=40 MN/m
3
. This is
contrary to what is expected. The ACN number for aircraft increases when the subgrade in a
pavement structure becomes weaker. However, the ICAO numbers for IL76T aircraft for rigid
pavements also appear to be unreasonable. The ACNs in this case are almost constant, showing
no effect of subgrade strength on the ACNs, contrary to the ACNs for other aircraft.
Tables 2 and 3 show ACNs for the IL76T. Table 2 shows ACNs calculated by COMFAA, where
23.5 percent of the load is on one main gear leg (four main gear legs), as provided by the ICAO
Design Manual. Assuming 47 percent (table 3) of the load on one main gear leg (two main gear
legs), the calculated ACN numbers are closer to the ICAO ACN numbers. However, there are
still significant differences.
11
Table 2. ACNs for IL76T Aircraft
Rigid Pavements Flexible Pavements
ACN Calculated by the COMFAA
Program
11.0 13.2 15.4 14.4 9.0 10.3 12.5 16.5
ACN from the ICAO Design Manual 38 38 38 39 37 40 45 53
Difference in ACN Number -27.0 -24.8 -22.6 -24.6 -28.0 -29.7 -32.5 -36.5
Table 3. ACNs for IL76T Aircraft
Rigid Pavements Flexible Pavements
ACN Calculated by the COMFAA
Program
29.4 33.1 30.0 33.8 24.1 27.3 33.8 45.4
ACN from the ICAO Design Manual 38 38 38 39 37 40 45 53
Difference in ACN Number -8.6 -4.9 -8.0 -5.2 12.9 -12.7 -11.2 -7.6
The minor differences between ACNs calculated by COMFAA and those obtained from the
ICAO Design Manual could be attributed to rounding of the ACNs in the ICAO Design Manual.
A comparison with programs ACNR [f.] and ACNF [g.], which are two computer programs
developed based on [a.], was made to check for similar differences. The results are presented in
tables 4 and 5. For most of the gear configurations, which can be classified as single, dual,
tandem, and dual tandem, the differences between the ACNs calculated by COMFAA and those
obtained in the ICAO design manual are very small. In most of the cases, ICAO ACNs look like
rounded numbers calculated by COMFAA. For example, for flexible pavement (subgrade
CBR=15), the COMFAA number for the A310 aircraft is 35.9, the ICAO number is 36, and the
ACNF number is 35.80. For a flexible pavement (subgrade CBR=6), the COMFAA ACN
number for a DC-10-15 is 73.4, 72 according to the ICAO Design Manual and 73.39 according
to ACNF. This indicates that the ACN calculated by ACNF supports those calculated by
COMFAA. Therefore, the ACNs calculated by COMFAA can be considered reliable and the
program can be used to calculate ACNs for the gear configurations, which can be classified as
single, dual, tandem, and dual tandem.
For the complex gear configurations, as shown in appendix D, COMFAA ACNs are either
similar to ICAO ACNs and/or to ACNF or ACNR ACNs, except for aircraft Canadair CL 44.
For Canadair CL 44 aircraft on rigid pavements, the ICAO ACNs and ACNs calculated by
ACNR are similar; however, ACNs calculated by COMFAA are higher. Overall, COMFAA can
be used to calculate ACNs for complex configurations, since most ACNs for complex gear
configurations calculated by COMFAA are similar to either ICAO ACNs or ACNs calculated by
ACNR or ACNF.
12
Table 4. ACNs for Selected Aircraft on Rigid Pavements
Aircraft Type
ACN by COMFAA ACN by ICAO Design Man. ACN by ACNR [f.]
Subgrade k [MN/m
3
] Subgrade k [MN/m
3
] Subgrade k [MN/m
3
]
150 80 40 20 150 80 40 20 150 80 40 20
A310 32.4 38.7 46.2 53.2 33 39 46 54 33 38.4 45.4 52.3
A320 DT 16.5 19.8 23.6 27.2 18 21 24 28 16.7 19.7 23.3 26.9
Caravelle 10 13.7 16.4 19.3 21.9 15 17 20 22 32.8 33.7 34.7 35.6
Canadair CL 44 30.0 35.2 40.6 45.4 25 30 35 40 25.3 29.9 35.4 40.5
CV 880 M 25.8 30.8 35.8 40.3 26 31 36 41 25.7 30.0 34.9 39.3
MD-87 43.7 46.0 48.0 49.7 45 47 49 50 43.7 46.0 48.1 49.7
DC-10-15 48.5 57.2 68.5 79.7 48 56 67 74 48.7 56.3 67.0 78.0
IL76T 11.0 13.2 15.4 14.4 38 38 38 39 10.9 12.2 14.0 13.6
L1011-1 44.3 51.7 61.7 72.2 45 52 62 73 46.3 51.9 61.1 71.3
TU154B 17.5 23.8 30.4 36.2 19 25 32 38 15.8 18.2 23.6 29.0
Table 5. ACNs for Selected Aircraft on Flexible Pavements
Aircraft Type
ACN by COMFAA ACN by ICAO Design Man. ACN by ACNF [g.]
Subgrade CBR Subgrade CBR Subgrade CBR
15 10 6 3 15 10 6 3 15 10 6 3
A310 35.9 39.7 48.1 63.2 36 40 48 64 35.80 39.73 48.11 63.18
A320 DT 17.6 19.2 23.1 31.7 18 19 23 32 17.63 19.22 23.06 31.69
Caravelle 10 14.7 16.5 19.3 23.1 15 17 19 23 13.88 15.49 18.72 22.89
Canadair CL 44 31.5 35.6 40.3 48.1 27 30 36 47 31.52 35.61 40.27 48.13
CV 880 M 26.5 30.6 35.7 44.0 27 31 36 44 26.53 30.62 35.77 43.98
MD-87 38.6 41.1 46.0 49.2 39 42 46 50 37.89 39.13 42.59 46.42
DC-10-15 55.8 61.5 73.4 100.2 55 61 72 100 55.39 60.85 72.15 98.88
IL76T 9.0 10.4 12.5 16.5 37 40 45 53 8.23 9.31 10.90 13.96
L1011-1 51.9 56.4 66.1 90.2 52 56 66 91 51.95 56.42 66.13 90.19
TU154B 19.2 22.4 28.4 37.1 20 24 30 38 19.16 22.35 28.35 37.02
2.5.2 ACN Numbers for C-17A on Rigid Pavements
In the case of the C-17A, COMFAA provides inconsistent results for ACNs for rigid pavements
on high and medium strength subgrades, as shown in figure 6. Calculations of ACNs for rigid
pavements use a rigid cutoff value of 3, which is the standard for the ICAO computation of
ACNs. Increasing the value of the rigid cutoff gives consistent results, as shown in table 6, but
this procedure is not standard.
To fully understand the impact of changes in the rigid cutoff value on ACNs, calculations of
ACNs were made with different rigid cutoff values for two types of gear loadings, as shown in
figures 6 and 7. The ACNs are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 presents ACNs for the
C-17A. Table 7 presents ACNs for three out of six wheels of the C-17A. Tables 6 and 7 show
that, for certain rigid cutoff values and certain subgrade strengths, ACNs for both gear
configurations can be identical. For example, with a rigid cutoff value of 2 and a subgrade
strength of 150 pci (40.7 kg/cm
3
), the ACN for both gear configurations is 57.7. For the C-17A,
an increase in the rigid cutoff value causes changes in ACNs by the inclusion of additional
13
wheels in the calculation of the ACNs. It can be concluded that in the case of inconsistent ACN
values for certain gear configurations, consistency can be achieved by increasing the value of the
rigid cutoff.
Table 6. ACNs for C-17A Aircraft on Rigid Pavements
k [kg/cm
3
]
Rigid Cutoff
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
150 38.0 56.9 57.7 57.7 53.5 45.0 43.5
80 38.4 64.9 64.9 56.4 48.2 47.8 47.8
40 71.5 71.6 62.4 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7
20 77.1 72.8 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.6
Table 7. ACNs for Three out of Six Wheels for C-17A Aircraft on Rigid Pavements
k [kg/cm
3
]
Rigid Cutoff
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
150 38.0 56.9 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7
80 38.4 64.9 64.9 64.9 64.9 64.9 64.9
40 71.5 71.6 71.6 71.6 71.6 71.6 71.6
20 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.1
Figure 6. COMFAA Results for C-17A Aircraft
14
Figure 7. COMFAA Results for Three Wheels out of Six on C-17A Aircraft
2.5.3 Slab Thickness Calculated Using COMFAA and AC 150/5320-6D
Seven cases were analyzed to compare the design thicknesses obtained from COMFAA, AC
150/5320-6D, and R805FAA. The input data for these cases are included in table 8. Table 9
presents a comparison of design thicknesses obtained from the three sources. The last column in
table 9 shows the difference between the design thickness obtained from R805FAA and from
COMFAA.
Table 8. Input Data for Thickness Designs
No.
Aircraft/Gear
Configuration
Annual
Departures
Pass/Cov.
Ratio
Coverages
1
k
Concrete
Flexural
Strength
Gear
Weight
Tire
Contact
Area
lb/in
3
psi lbs in
2
1 Single Wheel 1200 5.18 4,633 100 750 35,625 296.87
2 Dual Wheel 1200 3.48 6,897 100 750 95,000 237.50
3 Dual Tandem 6000 3.68 32,609 200 700 190,000 237.50
4 A-300 Model B2 6000 3.51 34,188 200 700 142,500 207.47
5 B-747 SP 15000 3.70 81,081 50 800 166,250 210.00
6 B-767 25000 3.90 128,205 300 650 142,500 202.46
7 DC-10-10 25000 3.64 137,363 300 650 213,750 294.00
1
Coverages are determined by multiplying annual departures by 20 and dividing that product by
the pass-to-coverage ratio [b.].
15
Table 9. Results of Thickness Designs
No.
Aircraft/Gear
Configuration
Design Thickness - H (inches) Difference (inches)
H
R805FAA
- H
COMFAA
6D R805FAA COMFAA
1 Single Wheel 10.2 10.00 9.98 0.02
2 Dual Wheel 15.3 15.42 15.30 0.12
3 Dual Tandem 17.0 16.99 16.65 0.34
4 A-300 Model B2 13.0 12.96 12.72 0.24
5 B-747 SP 17.8 17.55 17.43 0.12
6 B-767 12.4 12.62 12.54 0.08
7 DC-10-10 15.5 15.27 15.12 0.15
An additional investigation was conducted to see if there are any differences between the design
thicknesses calculated by AC 150/5320-6C and those calculated by COMFAA. Overall, from
tables 9 and 10, it can be observed that the thicknesses calculated by the two methods are in
agreement. It can be concluded that COMFAA produces acceptable results.
Table 10. Comparison of Design Thicknesses Obtained by AC 150/5320-6C and COMFAA
Major Input Data Tools
Annual Passes (1000)
1.2 3.0 6.0 15.0 25.0
B-747-100, GW=800kp
R = 700psi, k=350 pci
FAA-6C 11.9 12.6 13.2 14 14.4
ACNComp 11.9 12.6 13.2 13.9 14.3
DC-10-10, GW=400kp
R=800psi, k=50 pci
FAA-6C 14.8 15.3 16 16.9 17.3
ACNComp 14.4 15.3 16.0 16.8 17.3
L1011-100, GW=500kp
R = 735 psi, k=100 pci
FAA-6C 12.8 13.7 14.2 15 15.5
ACNComp 12.8 13.6 14.2 14.9 15.4
2.6 Analysis of Two Closely Spaced Triple Twin Tandems Using COMFAA
Figure 8 presents dimensions of two closely spaced triple twin tandems, which are analyzed with
COMFAA. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the impact of a second triple twin
tandem on the maximum slab edge stress. The single tire load for the analyzed case is 58,852
pounds (26,695 kg) and the tire pressure is 194 psi (1338 kPa).
Figures 9 and 10 show the results for two cases: Case 1 slab thickness 14.90 inches (37.85
cm), subgrade modulus k = 100 pci (27.1 kg/cm
3
), and Case 2 slab thickness 12.62 inches
(32.05 cm), subgrade modulus k = 200 pci (54.3 kg/cm
3
).
Figures 9 and 10 show the contribution of each individual wheel to the maximum slab edge
stress at the bottom of the slab. In both cases, the contribution of one triple twin tandem to the
maximum slab edge stress is significant, while the contribution of a second triple twin tandem is
negligible. It can be concluded that it is sufficient to consider only one triple twin tandem when
determining the maximum slab edge stress using the H51 model.
The contribution of a single wheel to the edge stress, based on the location of the wheel, is
shown in figures 11 and 12. The wheel is positioned perpendicular to the slab edge. The figures
16
show that the contribution of the wheel to the edge stress is insignificant when the wheel is
located more than 190 inches (482.6 cm) from the point of edge stress evaluation.
Figure 8. Two Closely Spaced Triple Twin Tandems
Figure 9. Contribution of Individual Wheels to Slab Edge Stress at Location "A" for Two
Triple Twin Tandems (Slab Thickness = 14.90 inches (37.85 cm), k = 100 pci (27.1 kg/cm
3
))
60.24 60.24 147.00
66.93
66.93
60.24
60.24
61.02 61.02
207.24
1
-47.4
2
8.8
3
-1.1
4
0.0
5
668.1
6
128.4
7
0.8
8
0.0
9
-47.3
10
8.9
11
-1.1
12
0.0
"A"
17
Figure 10. Contribution of Individual Wheels to Slab Edge Stress at Location "A" for Two
Triple Twin Tandems (Slab Thickness = 12.62 inches (32.05 cm), k = 200 pci (54.3 kg/cm
3
))
Figure 11. 3-D Surface of Edge Stress Depending on Wheel Position at Coordinates x and y
(Slab Thickness = 12.62 inches (32.05 cm), k = 200 pci (54.3 kg/cm
3
))
0
130
260
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0
4
0
8
0
1
2
0
1
6
0
2
0
0
2
4
0
2
8
0
y [inches]
s
t
r
e
s
s
[
p
s
i
]
x [inches]
600-800
400-600
200-400
0-200
-200-0
1
735.8
2
-87.9
3
0.0
4
0.0
5
71.8
6
-3.3
7
0.0
8
0.0
9
3.3
10
-2.0
11
0.0
12
0.0
"A"
18
Figure 12. Surface Chart, Viewed from Above, of Edge Stress Depending on Wheel
Position at Coordinates x and y (Slab Thickness = 12.62 inches (32.05 cm), k = 200 pci (54.3
kg/cm
3
))
3. REFERENCES
a. "Aerodrome Design Manual: Part 3 Pavements," Second Edition, Doc. 9157-AN/901,
Part 3, International Civil Aviation Organization, 1983.
b. "Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation," AC 150/5320-6D, July 7, 1995.
c. Kreger, W.C., "Computerized Aircraft Ground Flotation Analysis-Edge-Loaded Rigid
Pavement," General Dynamics Research Program, Task RDP 414-61-506, January 1967.
d. Press, W.H., Flannery B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., and Vettering, W.T., "Numerical Recipes:
The Art of Scientific Computing," Cambridge University Press, 1986.
e. R805FAA Computer Program "Computer Aided Design for Rigid Airport Pavements
(R805FAA)," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C., May 31, 1988.
f. ACNR Computer Program "ICAO Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) Analysis for
Aerodrome Pavements," International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Aerodromes,
Air Routes and Ground Aids Section.
g. ACNF Computer Program "ICAO Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) Analysis for
Aerodrome Pavements," International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Aerodromes,
Air Routes and Ground Aids Section.
0
100
200
300
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
y
[
i
n
c
h
e
s
]
x [inches]
700-800
600-700
500-600
400-500
300-400
200-300
100-200
0-100
-100-0
-200--100
Stress [psi]
A-1
APPENDIX A CHARACTERISTICS OF AIRCRAFT ADDED TO COMFAA
No. Aircraft Type
Wheel
Arrangement
Gear Load Load on
One Main
Gear
Tire Pressure Wheel Spacing
kg lbs Mpa psi
Transverse Longitudinal
cm in cm in
1 A-310-200 Dual Tandem 132,000 291,010 0.467 1.23 178 93 36.6 140 55.1
2
A-320 Dual
Tandem
Dual Tandem 68,000 149,914 0.471 1.12 162 78 30.7 100 39.4
3 B720 Dual Tandem 104,326 229,999 0.474 1 145 81 31.9 124 48.8
4 DC-3 Single 11,430 25,199 0.468 0.31 45 - - - -
5 DC-4 Dual 33,113 73,002 0.468 0.53 77 74 29.1 - -
6 DC-8-43 Dual Tandem 144,242 317,999 0.465 1.22 177 76 29.92 140 55.12
7 DC-10-15 Dual Tandem 207,746 458,002 0.467 1.34 194 137 53.9 163 64.2
8 MD-87 Dual 68,266 150,501 0.474 1.17 170 71 28.0 - -
9
BAC 1-11 Series
400
Dual 39,690 87,501 0.475 0.93 135 53 20.9 - -
10
BAC 1-11 Series
475
Dual 44,679 98,500 0.475 0.57 83 62 24.4 - -
11 Caravelle 10
Complex see
Table 3
52,000 114,640 0.461 0.75 109 40 15.7 107 42.1
12 Caravelle 12
Complex see
Table 3
55,960 123,371 0.46 0.88 128 41 16.1 107 42.1
13 Canadair CL 44
Complex see
Table 3
95,708 211,000 0.475 1.12 162 51 20.1 122 48
14 CV 880 M Dual Tandem 87,770 193,500 0.466 1.03 149 55 21.7 114 44.9
15 CV 990 Dual Tandem 115,666 255,000 0.485 1.28 186 61 24.0 118 46.5
16 Dash 7 Dual 19,867 43,799 0.468 0.74 107 42 16.5 - -
17
F27 Friendship
Mk500
Dual 19,777 43,601 0.475 0.54 78 45 17.7 - -
18
F28 Fellowship
Mk1000LPT
Dual 29,484 65,001 0.463 0.58 84 58 22.8 - -
19
F28 Fellowship
Mk1000HTP
Dual 29,484 65,001 0.463 0.69 100 55 21.7 - -
20 Fokker 100 Dual 44,680 98,503 0.478 0.98 142 59 23.2 - -
21 HS125 Dual 10,600 23,369 0.455 0.77 112 32 12.6 - -
22 HS748 Dual 21,092 46,500 0.436 0.59 86 48 18.9 - -
23 IL62 Dual Tandem 162,600 358,472 0.47 1.08 157 80 31.5 165 65
24 IL76T
Complex see
Table 3
171,000 376,990 0.235 0.64 93 - - 258 101.6
25 IL86 3 DT Units 209,500 461,868 0.312 0.88 128 125 49.2 149 58.7
26 L-100-20 Tandem 70,670 155,801 0.482 0.72 104 - - 154 60.6
27 Trident 1E
Complex see
Table 3
61,160 134,835 0.46 1.03 149 32 12.6 - -
28 TU134A Dual Tandem 47,600 104,940 0.456 0.83 120 56 22.0 99 39
29 TU154B
Complex see
Table3
98,000 216,053 0.451 0.93 135 62 24.4 98 38.6
30 VC10-1150 Dual Tandem 151,953 334,999 0.483 1.01 146 86 33.9 155 61
B-1
APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF RESULTS CALCULATED BY H51 FORTRAN AND
VISUAL BASIC VERSIONS
Listing B.1 TestH51 Input Data for A-300-600 Aircraft
A-300-600
Runway Characteristics:
H K E MU RO DELTA
10 200 4000000 0.15 36.1354107661622 0
XLA, XLB, XLC, XLD = 27 0 65 0
XNA, XNB, XNC, XND = 2 1 2 1
Contact area of one tire = 232.427777777778 PHIE = 1.667
Inflation Pressure = 180 psi.
Gear Load = 167348 lb B = 150
Listing B.2 TestH51 Input Data for B-777-200 Aircraft
B-777-200
Runway Characteristics:
H K E MU RO DELTA
10 200 4000000 0.15 36.1354107661622 0
XLA, XLB, XLC, XLD = 56 0 65 0
XNA, XNB, XNC, XND = 2 1 3 1
Contact area of one tire = 491.758241758242 PHIE = 1.667
Inflation Pressure = 182 psi.
Gear Load = 537000 lb B = 150
Listing B.3 TestH51 Input Data for IL76 Aircraft
IL76
Runway Characteristics:
H K E MU RO DELTA
30 200 4000000 0.15 82.3709238474263 0
XLA, XLB, XLC, XLD = 24 56 58 0
XNA, XNB, XNC, XND = 2 2 2 1
Contact area of one tire = 320.245879120879 PHIE = 1.667
Inflation Pressure = 182 psi.
Gear Load = 466278 lb B = 150
B-2
Table B-1. Results for A-300-600 Aircraft
No.
Slab
Thickness (in)
GAMMA
(degree)
Stress FORTRAN
(psi)
Stress Vbasic
(psi)
Difference
1 10 0 1004.578 1004.575871 -0.000212%
2 60 1054.291 1054.288455 -0.000241%
3 90 945.305 945.3054643 0.000049%
4 12 0 814.717 814.7168406 -0.000020%
5 60 833.604 833.6041241 0.000015%
6 90 755.909 755.9095996 0.000079%
7 20 0 436.917 436.9165003 -0.000114%
8 60 426.846 426.8469253 0.000217%
9 90 397.995 397.9954854 0.000122%
10 28 0 274.251 274.2508386 -0.000059%
11 60 267.526 267.5260023 0.000001%
12 90 255.716 255.7161598 0.000062%
13 30 0 248.5 248.4995994 -0.000161%
14 60 241.918 241.9179881 -0.000005%
15 90 232.326 232.3262948 0.000127%
Table B-2. Results for B-777-200 Aircraft
No.
Slab
Thickness (in)
GAMMA
(degree)
Stress FORTRAN
(psi)
Stress Vbasic
(psi)
Difference
1 10 0 1220.749 1220.750891 0.000155%
2 60 1391.675 1391.674807 -0.000014%
3 90 972.494 972.491089 -0.000299%
4 12 0 1021.577 1021.578512 0.000148%
5 60 1122.404 1122.402727 -0.000113%
6 90 866.44 866.4401079 0.000012%
7 20 0 625.238 625.2371494 -0.000136%
8 60 624.298 624.2977675 -0.000037%
9 90 614.193 614.1912793 -0.000280%
10 28 0 440.431 440.4310881 0.000020%
11 60 426.891 426.8905455 -0.000106%
12 90 458.038 458.0367487 -0.000273%
13 30 0 406.216 406.2166814 0.000168%
14 60 392.912 392.9105134 -0.000378%
15 90 423.834 423.8327699 -0.000290%
B-3
Table B-3. Results for Il76 Aircraft
No.
Slab
Thickness (in)
GAMMA
(degree)
Stress FORTRAN
(psi)
Stress Vbasic
(psi)
Difference
1 10 0 1009.358 1009.359067 0.000106%
2 60 1142.154 1142.155404 0.000123%
3 90 1061.429 1061.428613 -0.000036%
4 12 0 887.207 887.207818 0.000092%
5 60 957.422 957.4172015 -0.000501%
6 90 891.804 891.8048697 0.000098%
7 20 0 598.529 598.5295578 0.000093%
8 60 571.907 571.9084047 0.000246%
9 90 551.281 551.2808991 -0.000018%
10 28 0 432.974 432.9747341 0.000170%
11 60 397.195 397.1953286 0.000083%
12 90 385.973 385.9738452 0.000219%
13 30 0 399.173 399.1730765 0.000019%
14 60 366.971 366.9717046 0.000192%
15 90 357.659 357.6590433 0.000012%
C-1
APPENDIX C RIGID AND FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ACNS FOR AIRCRAFT ADDED TO
COMFAA
Table C-1. ACNs for Added Aircraft on Rigid Pavements
No. Aircraft Type
ACN by COMFAA ACN by ICAO Design Man. Difference in ACN Number
Subgrade k [MN/m
3
] Subgrade k [MN/m
3
] Subgrade k [MN/m
3
]
150 80 40 20 150 80 40 20 150 80 40 20
1 A-310-200 32.4 38.7 46.2 53.2 33 39 46 54 -0.6 -0.3 0.2 -0.8
2 A-320 Dual Tandem 16.5 19.8 23.6 27.2 18 21 24 28 -1.5 -1.2 -0.4 -0.8
3 B720 25.2 30.8 37.2 42.9 25 30 37 42 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.9
4 DC-3 6.0 6.5 6.9 7.2 6 7 7 7 0.0 -0.5 -0.1 0.2
5 DC-4 13.2 14.9 16.6 17.9 13 15 17 18 0.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1
6 DC-8-43 41 49 57 65 40.7 48.7 57.1 64.6 0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.4
7 DC-10-15 48.5 57.2 68.5 79.7 48 56 67 74 0.5 1.2 1.5 5.7
8 MD-87 43.7 46.0 48.0 49.7 45 47 49 50 -1.3 -1.0 -1.0 -0.3
9 BAC 1-11 Series 400 24.8 26.2 27.5 28.5 25 26 28 29 -0.2 0.2 -0.5 -0.5
10 BAC 1-11 Series 475 22.6 24.8 26.8 28.4 22 25 27 28 0.6 -0.2 -0.2 0.4
11 Caravelle 10 13.7 16.4 19.3 21.9 15 17 20 22 -1.3 -0.6 -0.7 -0.1
12 Caravelle 12 16.4 19.3 22.3 25.0 16 19 22 25 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0
13 Canadair CL 44 30.0 35.2 40.6 45.4 25 30 35 40 5.0 5.2 5.6 5.4
14 CV 880 M 25.8 30.8 35.8 40.3 26 31 36 41 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.7
15 CV 990 40.4 47.3 54.1 59.9 41 48 54 60 -0.6 -0.7 0.1 -0.1
16
Dash 7
11.2 12.0 12.6 13.2 11 12 13 13 0.2 0.0 -0.4 0.2
17
F27 Friendship
Mk500
9.9 10.9 11.7 12.3 10 11 12 12 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 0.3
18
F28 Fellowship
Mk1000LPT
13.7 15.1 16.4 17.4 14 15 17 18 -0.3 0.1 -0.6 -0.6
19
F28 Fellowship
Mk1000HTP
15.0 16.3 17.4 18.4 15 16 18 18 0.0 0.3 -0.6 0.4
20
Fokker 100
27.7 29.3 30.8 31.9 28 29 31 32 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 -0.1
21 HS125 5.9 6.3 6.6 6.8 6 6 7 7 -0.1 0.3 -0.4 -0.2
22 HS748 9.6 10.5 11.3 11.9 10 11 11 12 -0.4 -0.5 0.3 -0.1
23 IL62 41.6 50.1 59.7 68.6 42 50 60 69 -0.4 0.1 -0.3 -0.4
24 IL76T 11.0 13.2 15.4 14.4 38 38 38 39 -27.0 -24.8 -22.6 -24.6
25
IL86
25.6 30.7 37.9 45.7 25 31 38 46 0.6 -0.3 -0.1 -0.3
26 L-100-20 30.2 32.7 35.5 38.2 30 33 36 38 0.2 -0.3 -0.5 0.2
27 Trident 1E 31.8 34.3 36.5 38.4 32 34 37 39 -0.2 0.3 -0.5 -0.6
28 TU134A 10.3 12.6 15.2 17.7 11 13 16 19 -0.7 -0.4 -0.8 -1.3
29 TU154B 17.5 23.8 30.4 36.2 19 25 32 38 -1.5 -1.2 -1.6 -1.8
30 VC10-1150 37.5 45.9 55.5 64.2 38 46 56 65 -0.5 -0.1 -0.5 -0.8
C-2
Table C-2. ACNs for Added Aircraft on Flexible Pavements
No. Aircraft Type
ACN by COMFAA
ACN by ICAO Design
Manual
Difference in ACN Number
Subgrade CBR Subgrade CBR Subgrade CBR
15 10 6 3 15 10 6 3 15 10 6 3
1 A-310-200 35.9 39.7 48.1 63.2 36 40 48 64 -0.1 -0.3 0.1 -0.8
2
A-320 Dual Tandem
17.6 19.2 23.1 31.7 18 19 23 32 -0.4 0.2 0.1 -0.3
3 B720 28.6 31.7 39.3 51.3 29 31 39 51 -0.4 0.7 0.3 0.3
4 DC-3 3.9 5.5 7.5 9.2 4 6 8 9 -0.1 -0.5 -0.5 0.2
5 DC-4 12.3 14.0 16.5 20.4 11 14 16 20 1.3 0.0 0.5 0.4
6 DC-8-43 43 49 59 74 43.1 49.5 58.8 73 -0.1 -0.5 0.2 1.0
7 DC-10-15 55.8 61.5 73.4 100.2 55 61 72 100 0.8 0.5 1.4 0.2
8 MD-87 38.6 41.1 46.0 49.2 39 42 46 50 -0.4 -0.9 0.0 -0.8
9 BAC 1-11 Series 400 22.1 23.9 26.7 28.6 22 24 27 29 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.4
10 BAC 1-11 Series 475 19.2 24.1 27.5 31.1 19 24 28 31 0.2 0.1 -0.5 0.1
11 Caravelle 10 14.7 16.5 19.3 23.1 15 17 19 23 -0.3 -0.5 0.3 0.1
12
Caravelle 12
17.1 19.0 21.6 25.6 17 19 21 26 0.1 0.0 0.6 -0.4
13 Canadair CL 44 31.5 35.6 40.3 48.1 27 30 36 47 4.5 5.6 4.3 1.1
14 CV 880 M 26.5 30.6 35.7 44.0 27 31 36 44 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 0.0
15
CV 990
39.9 45.7 53.0 64.0 40 45 53 64 -0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0
16 Dash 7 9.5 10.7 12.3 13.7 10 11 12 14 -0.5 -0.3 0.3 -0.3
17
F27 Friendship
Mk500
7.9 9.8 11.6 13.4 8 10 12 13 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 0.4
18
F28 Fellowship
Mk1000LPT
11.3 14.1 16.3 19.3 11 14 16 19 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3
19
F28 Fellowship
Mk1000HTP
12.9 15.0 17.2 19.7 13 15 17 20 -0.1 0.0 0.2 -0.3
20 Fokker 100 24.7 26.4 29.8 32.2 25 27 30 32 -0.3 -0.6 -0.2 0.2
21 HS125 4.8 5.4 6.3 7.0 5 5 6 7 -0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0
22
HS748
7.7 9.5 10.9 13.0 8 9 11 13 -0.3 0.5 -0.1 0.0
23 IL62 47.7 54.4 64.1 79.1 47 54 64 79 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1
24 IL76T 9.0 10.4 12.5 16.5 37 40 45 53 -28.0 -29.6 -32.5 -36.5
25 IL86 33.6 36.0 43.2 60.7 34 36 43 61 -0.4 0.0 0.2 -0.3
26 L-100-20 27.1 30.8 32.9 38.4 27 31 33 38 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.4
27 Trident 1E 22.5 24.5 27.2 31.9 23 24 27 32 -0.5 0.5 0.2 -0.1
28 TU134A 11.5 12.5 15.3 20.0 12 13 16 21 -0.5 -0.5 -0.7 -1.0
29 TU154B 19.2 22.4 28.9 37.1 20 24 30 38 -0.8 -1.6 -1.1 -0.9
30 VC10-1150 44.0 49.8 60.7 76.8 44 50 61 77 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2
D-1
APPENDIX D WHEEL ARRANGEMENT FOR COMPLEX GEAR CONFIGURATIONS
No. Aircraft Type Wheel Arrangement
11 Caravelle 10
12 Caravelle 12
13 Canadair CL 44
24 IL76T
27 Trident 1E
29 TU154B
107 cm
107 cm
122 cm